The Validity and Reliability of Propensity to Trust Scale...ISSN:2528-9527 E-ISSN : 2528-9535 Yıl Year : 9 Cilt Volume:12 Sayı Issue :18. UİK Özel Sayısı Ağustos August 2019

ISSN:2528-9527 E-ISSN : 2528-9535

Yıl Year : 9 Cilt Volume:12

Sayı Issue :18. UİK Özel Sayısı Ağustos August 2019

Makalenin Geliş Tarihi Received Date: 16/07/2019 Makalenin Kabul Tarihi Accepted Date: 00/00/2019

OPUS © Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi-International Journal of Society Researches

ISSN:2528-9527 E-ISSN : 2528-9535 http://opusjournal.net

The Validity and Reliability of Propensity to Trust Scale

DOI: 10.26466/opus.592428

* İlksun Didem Ülbeği* - Azmi Yalçın**

* Dr., Çukurova Üniversitesi, İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi, İşletme Bölümü / Adana / Türkiye

E-Posta: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0001-6905-2720

** Prof. Dr., Çukurova Üniversitesi, İ.İ.B.F, İşletme Bölümü / Adana /Türkiye

E-Posta: [email protected] ORCID: 0000-0002-9323-3350

Abstract

In this study, it is aimed to assess the validity and reliability of propensity to trust scale developed by

Frazier, Johnson, & Fainshmidt (2013) by adapting to Turkish. In this regard, explanatory factor anal-

ysis, confirmatory factor analysis, item analysis, internal consistency coefficients, and validity analyses

are conducted with the data obtained from two different samples comprised of students (n = 287) and

employees (n = 323) in Turkey. According to this, explanatory factor analysis results showed single

factor consrtuct of the scale. Moreover, confirmatory factor analysis findings also revelaed single factor

construct of this scale (χ/sd = 1.345; p = .261; CFI = .999; TLI = .998; IFI = .999; RMSEA = .033;

SRMR= .008). Reliability analyses results showed Alpha and Omega coefficients indicate that the scale

is reliable. Regarding the validity of the scale discriminant validity, convergent validity, and criterion

related validity related assessments revealed the validity of the scale. The results of explanatory factor

analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, validity, and reliability analyses findings revealed that Turkish

version of propensity to trust scale is a valid and reliable instrument to use in studies in Turkey.

Keywords:

Propensity to Trust, Validity, Reliability, Exploratory Factor Analysis, Confirma-

tory Factor Analysis

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6905-2720

ISSN:2528-9527 E-ISSN : 2528-9535

Yıl Year : 9 Cilt Volume:12

Sayı Issue :18. UİK Özel Sayısı Ağustos August 2019

Makalenin Geliş Tarihi Received Date: 16/07/2019 Makalenin Kabul Tarihi Accepted Date: 00/00/2019

OPUS © Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi-International Journal of Society Researches

ISSN:2528-9527 E-ISSN : 2528-9535 http://opusjournal.net

Güven Eğilimi Ölçeğinin Geçerlik ve Güvenirlik

Analizi *

Öz

Bu çalışmada, Frazier, Johnson, & Fainshmidt (2013) tarafından geliştirilmiş olan güven eğilimi

ölçeğinin Türkçe’ye uyarlanarak geçerlik ve güvenirliğinin incelenmesi amaçlanmaktadır. Bu doğrul-

tuda Türkiye’de öğrenciler (n = 287) ve çalışanlardan (n = 323) oluşan iki farklı örneklemden elde edilen

veri ile açıklayıcı faktör analizi, doğrulayıcı faktör analizi, iç tutarlılık katsayıları ve geçerlik analizleri

gerçekleştirilmiştir. Buna göre yapılan açıklayıcı faktör analizi sonuçları ölçeğin tek faktörlü bir yapısı

olduğunu göstermiştir. Ayrıca gerçekleştirilmiş olan doğrulayıcı faktör analizi bulguları da ölçeğin tek

faktörlü bir yapısı olduğunu ortaya koymuştur (χ2/sd = 1.345; p = .261; CFI = .999; TLI = .998; IFI =

.999; RMSEA = .033; SRMR= .008). Güvenirlik analizleri bulguları ise alfa ve omega katsayılarının

ölçeğin güvenilir olduğuna işaret ettiğini belirlemiştir. Ölçeğin geçerliğine yönelik olarak

gerçekleştirilen ayrışma geçerliği, birleşme geçerliği ve ölçüt bağımlı geçerliğe yönelik değerlendirmeler

ise ölçeğin geçerliğini ortaya koymuştur. Yapılan açıklayıcı ve doğrulayıcı faktör analizleri ile geçerlilik

ve güvenirlik analizlerinin sonucunda elde edilen bulgular güven eğilimi ölçeğinin geçerli ve güvenilir

olarak değerlendirilebileceğini ortaya koymakta olup Türkiye’de yapılacak olan araştırmalarda kullanıla-

bileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Güven Eğilimi, Geçerlik, Güvenirlik, Açıklayıcı Faktör Analizi,

Doğrulayıcı Faktör Analizi


852 OPUS © Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi

Introduction

Trust is a vital element in individuals’ both personal and work lives. Trust

has a growing importance in today’s business setting in particular with

high competition in global environment, advanced technologies in pro-

duction, information, and communication, changes of organization struc-

tures, different work practices, and various generational approaches to

employment (Bachmann and Zaheer, 2006; Frazier, Johnson, and

Fainshmidt, 2013).

In recent years especially as a consequence of the gaining importance

in organizational life, trust has been studied extensively (Mayer and Da-

vis, 1999). Trust is a fundamental element of employer-employee relation-

ship and is an important factor for effective relations (Colquitt, Scott, and

LePine, 2007, p.918). Research on trust reveals that trust has several out-

comes in organizational functioning; it leads to increased job satisfaction,

advanced job performance, increased organizational commitment, and

raised organizational citizenship behaviors (Frazier et. al., 2013). In con-

nection with its significance to various behaviors and attitudes, under-

standing the dispositional factors for development of trust becomes note-

worthy.

Propensity to trust is an individual’s disposition to trust (Gill, Boies,

Finegan, and McNally, 2005, p. 287). According to Whitener, Brodt,

Korsgaard and Werner (1998) this disposition is based on the expectation

about the individuals’ trustworthy actions. Propensity to trust levels can

differ according to personality, culture, and experiences (Mayer, Davis

and Schoorman, 1995). Moreover, individuals with high level or propen-

sity to trust will also have high level of trust for other individuals (Whit-

ener et. al., 1998).

Propensity to trust has various outcomes concerning both individual

and work such as well-being, social exchange, organizational commit-

ment, organizational citizenship behavior, job satisfaction, organizational

support, and most likely trust itself (Bernerth and Walker, 2009; Nambu-

diri, 2012; Poon, Mohd Salleh and Senik, 2007; Van Dyne, Vandewalle,

Kostova, Latham, and Cummings, 2000). Even though propensity to trust

has significant effects on various attitudes and behaviors, and is an im-

İlksun Didem Ülbeği - Azmi Yalçın

OPUS © Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi 853

portant antecedent of trust, it has not received much attention in the liter-

ature. In consequence of an unaddressed concept, it has not attracted

much attention among scholars, and as a result, a brief, valid, and reliable

instrument is unavailable in the literature to measure the construct.

In this regard, understanding the development and formation of trust

is essential. In this context, our aim is to reveal the validity and reliability

of propensity to trust scale in two Turkish samples in order to make avail-

able in Turkish context. Accordingly, we examine the factorial structure

and reliability of the scale in the first step. Next, we confirm this structure

by conducting confirmatory factor analysis in a second sample. Moreover,

we check validity of the scale by examining convergent validity, discrimi-

nant validity, and criterion validity. In addition, we assess the reliability

of the scale in the second sample as well. Thereby we expect to make a

contribution to the literature by providing this scale regarding propensity

to trust. Regard to this, with this study by validating the propensity to

trust scale, we expect to be useful for the researchers who would like to

study further and make a contribution to the field and understanding of

trust and formation of trust in organizational life.

Background

Trust is conceptualized with various definitions due to the different ap-

proaches (Colquitt et. al., 2007), this leads to confusion about the construct,

antecedents, and outcomes of trust (Gill et. al., 2015). With their frame-

work Mayer et. al. (1995) shed light on the development of interpersonal

trust.

According to this integrative and extensive model of trust, two parties’

characteristics are taken into consideration, trustor and trustee. The model

suggests that trust is formed by trustor’s perception of the trustee and

trustor propensity to trust (Ashleigh, Higgs and Dulewicz, 2012), trustor

propensity to trust and trustee’s perceived trustworthiness are the ante-

cedents to trust. In this framework, high levels of propensity to trust and

perceived trustworthiness lead to trust which is the willingness to be vul-

nerable to the actions of the trustee whereas as a result the trustor takes

more risks in this relationship (Mayer et. al., 1995) (see Figure 1).



Several characteristics of the trustee are identified in the literature (e.g.,

Butler, 1991; Cook and Wall, 1980; Ring and Van de Ven, 1992; Sitkin and

Roth, 1993; Mishra, 1996), however the proposed model attributes of the

trustee are mostly explanatory (Mayer et. al, 1995; Heyns and Rothmann,

2015). The model suggests that perceived trustworthiness of the trustee is

examined in three factors, ability, benevolence, and integrity (Mayer et.

al., 1995).

Ability is that group of skills, competencies, and characteristics that en-

able a party to have influence within some specific domain (Mayer et al.,

1995, p.717) whereas in trust literature competence and expertise are also

used interchangeably (Mayer et. al., 1995). Benevolence is the extent to

which a trustee is believed to want to do good to the trustor, aside from

an egocentric profit motive (Mayer et. al., 1995, p. 718). And lastly integrity

is the trustor’s perception that the trustee adheres to a set of principles that

the trustor finds acceptable (Mayer et. al., 1995, p. 719). In previous studies

instead of integrity, value congruence and character were used as syno-

nyms (Mayer et. al., 1995).

Figure 1. Integrative Model of Trust (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman, 1995, p. 715)

Trust is conceptualized as a trait by several researchers in the literature

(e.g. Rotter, 1967; Mayer et. al., 1995). Rotter (1971) addressed trust as a

generalized expectancy about others trustworthy behavior and this can be

Ability

Benevolence

Integrity

Trust

Trustor’s

Propensity

Risk Taking in

Relationship Outcomes

Perceived Risk

Factors of Perceived

Trustworthiness



assessed as a permanent personality attribute which does not change de-

pendent on time or place. According to Rotter (1980) individuals with high

propensity to trust are also trustworthy people.

Propensity to trust is the dispositional factor that establishes the indi-

vidual to trust or not (Van Dyne et. al., 2000). This tendency is more salient

in situations when the trustee is not closely known, on the other hand it

also serves as a cognitive leap even in the situation where the information

is available about the trustee (Colquitt et. al., 2007). Lewis and Weigert

(1985) stated that trustworthiness is only the beginning for trust, however

without trust propensity, trust will not be established.

Trust literature shows that propensity to trust of individuals has sig-

nificant outcomes in their attitudes and behaviors. For example, Van Dyne

et. al. (2000) revealed in their study that propensity to trust has a positive

relationship with organizational citizenship behavior. According to this if

a person has trusting dispositions than this individual will also behave in

positive behaviors and less negative behaviors (Van Dyne et. al., 2000, p.

6). In their meta-analysis, Colquitt et. al (2007) also found that trust pro-

pensity has a positive correlation with organizational citizenship behav-

iors.

In their meta-analysis Dirks and Ferrin (2002) showed that propensity

to trust is related to trust in leadership. Colquitt et. al (2007) conducted a

meta-analysis study on trust, trustworthiness, and trust propensity and

revealed that trust propensity is positively related to trust and risk taking.

Colquitt et. al (2007) also found that trust propensity is positively related

with ability, benevolence, and integrity whereas they showed that it is

negatively correlated with counterproductive work behaviors.

Poon et. al. (2007) revealed that there are positive and significant rela-

tionships between propensity to trust with job satisfaction and perceived

organizational support. They also showed that propensity to trust moder-

ates the relationship between organizational support perceptions of em-

ployees and their job satisfaction levels.

Bernerth and Walker (2009) found that employees’ propensity to trust

has a significant and positive effect on employees’ perceptions of social

exchange. They also asserted that in the presence of more trusting manag-



ers and employees, employees’ perceptions of positive relationships in-

crease whereas the situation is reverse, the employees perceive social ex-

change less positively.

Mahony, Klimchak and Morrell (2012) showed in their study that pro-

pensity to trust has a positive and significant effect on employees’ job per-

formance. Colquitt et. al (2007) revealed in their meta-analysis study that

there is a positive and significant correlation between trust propensity and

task performance.

Nambudiri (2012) found that propensity to trust has positive relation-

ships with affective commitment, and normative commitment whereas

the relationship with continuance commitment was significant at .05 level.

Moreover, Colquitt et. al. (2007) showed a positive correlation between

trust propensity and affective commitment in their meta-analysis study.

Method

In this research, we conducted two studies in two different samples. In the

first study, we assessed the factorial structure and reliability of the scale.

In the second study we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis, exam-

ined the validity and reliability of the scale further.

Samples

First sample was comprised of university students. We distributed 300

questionnaires and 290 of them were returned however, 287 of them were

useful for data analysis. There were 149 females and 138 males in the sam-

ple. The mean age was 21.85 years.

Second sample comprised of employees working in private sector in

Adana. 330 questionnaires were distributed in total, and 323 of them were

returned with full data. There were 172 females and 151 males in the sam-

ple. The mean age was 40.56 years and the mean job tenure was 17.02

years. The participants’ education level was mostly undergraduate level

(%89).



Data Collection Tools

In order to assess the validity and reliability of the propensity to trust scale

in Turkish samples we used the similar variables in the original study

which are propensity to trust, ability, benevolence, integrity, and trust.

Propensity to trust is assessed using with the scale developed by Fra-

zier, Johnson and Fainshmidt (2013). This measure has a one-factor struc-

ture and consists of four items. In their study Frazier et. al. (2013) reported

internal consistency coefficients of .89 and .88.

In order to measure ability, benevolence and integrity we used the

items developed and shortened by Mayer and Davis (1999). We examined

ability by using six items. In their study, Mayer and Davis (1999) reported

Alphas as .85 and .88 in various samples. Benevolence is measured using

five items and they reported Alphas .87 and .89 in their study. In addition,

we examined integrity by using six items. Mayer and Davis (1999) found

Alphas as .82 and .88 in their study.

Trust is examined using the scales developed by Schoorman, Mayer

and Davis (1996) and taken from the study conducted by Mayer and Davis

(1999). In their study internal consistency coefficient are reported as .59

and .66.

In this study 5-point Likert scale is used ranging from “1 = strongly

disagree to 5 = strongly agree” as response categories.

Statistical Analyses

The statistical analyses are conducted using R Studio version .0.99.903

based on R Version 3.3.1 (R Core Team, 2016). We utilized several R core

packages with psych (Revelle, 2017), Qgraph (Epskamp, Cramer, Wal-

dorp, Schmittmann, and Borsboom, 2012), SemPlot (Epskamp with Stu-

ber, 2017), and Lavaan (Rosseel, 2012).



Results

Study 1

1. Explanatory Factor Analysis

In order to assess the construct validity of the scale, we utilized explana-

tory factor analysis. This is a widely used method to show construct va-

lidity of a scale with a different purpose or sample (Çokluk, Şekercioğlu,

& Büyüköztürk, 2012, p. 177). We used principle components analysis

method for extraction and varimax method for rotation; however, the

analysis could not rotate the solution as only one component was ex-

tracted. Results showed that KMO (Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin) Measure of Sam-

pling Adequacy was .833 and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity was χ2 = 562.280;

df = 6; p .0001. Explanatory factor analysis results revealed one factor

structure of the scale as it was in the original one. As seen on Table 1 factor

loadings were .858, .857, .871, and .823, and the 72.63% of total variance

was explained by this factor.

Table 1. Factor Loadings of the Propensity to Trust Scale

Propensity to Trust Factor Loadings

PT1 .858

PT2 .857

PT3 .871

PT4 .823

Explained Variance: % 72.628

KMO: .833

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity: χ² = 562.280; df = 6; p < .0001

Principle Component Analysis

Reliability Analysis

In order to assess the reliability of the scale, we utilized both item analysis

and internal consistency coefficients. As seen in Table 2, corrected item-

total correlations were between .688 and .758 and deleting any items from

the scale did not increase Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.



For assessing internal consistency of the scale, we used both

Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega coefficients. According to the

results, alpha coefficient was .874 whereas omega coefficient was .875.

Table 2. Reliability Analysis of the Propensity to Trust Scale

Propensity to Trust

Scale Items

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Alpha If Item Deleted Mean Standard

Deviation

PT1 .738 .836 4.199 .844

PT2 .737 .836 4.303 .795

PT3 .758 .827 4.331 .809

PT4 .688 .855 4.441 .751

Study 2

1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis

In order to confirm the results of explanatory factor analysis, we con-

ducted confirmatory factor analysis using maximum likelihood method.

As seen in Table 3 confirmatory factor analysis results showed a very good

model fit, χ2 = 2.690; df = 2; p < .261. Furthermore, model fit indices are

obtained as CFI = .999; TLI = .998; IFI = .999; RMSEA = .033; and SRMR =

.008. As shown in Figure 2, standardized regression weights were .832;

.854; .850; and .855.

Table 3. Confirmatory Factor Analysis Model Fit Results

Fit Index Model Results Reference Values1

χ² (CMIN) 2.690 0 ≤ χ² ≤ 2df

df 2 -

χ²/df (CMIN/df) 1.345 0 ≤ χ²/df ≤ 2

p value .261 -

CFI .999 .90 < CFI

TLI .998 .90 < TLI

IFI .999 .90 ≤ IFI ≤ .95

RMSEA .033 .00 ≤ RMSEA ≤ .05

SRMR .008 .00 ≤ SRMR ≤ .05

χ²=Chi-Square, df=Degrees of Freedom, RMSEA= Root Mean Square

Error of Approximation, IFI= Incremental Fit Index, TLI = Tucker Lewis



Index, CFI = Comparative Fit Index, SRMR = Standardized Root Mean

Square Residual, 1Referance values adapted from Bayram, 2010; Meydan

& Şeşen, 2011, Hair, Black, Babin, & Anderson, 2014.

Figure 2. Propensity to Trust Scale Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results

Validity Results

In order to assess construct validity, we examined convergent validity,

discriminant validity, and criterion validity. For establishing convergent

validity, factor loadings and average variance extracted (AVE) values

should be higher than .50 and composite reliability (CR) coefficients

should be higher than .70 (Hair et. al., 2014, p. 605). According to our anal-

ysis results, as seen in Figure 2 factor loadings are between .832 and .855

that are higher than .50. Moreover, as shown in Table 4, AVE values are

higher than .50 whereas CR coefficients are higher than .70. All these re-

sults revel that convergent validity is ensured for the scale.

In order to establish discriminant validity, AVE values should be

higher than MSV values and the square root of AVE values should be

higher than the correlations between the variables (Hair et. al., 2014, p.

631). According to our analysis results, as seen on Table 4, AVE values are

above .50 and square root of AVEs which are shown in diagonals are also

higher than the correlations between the variables. These findings show

that discriminant validity is ensured for this scale.

For the purpose of establishing criterion validity, the relationships be-

tween the variables should fulfil the expectations (Hair et. al., 2014, p. 633).

According to our findings, as seen in Table 4, the correlations of propen-

sity to trust with ability, benevolence, integrity, and trust are positive as



expected regarding the theoretical background. These results revealed

that criterion validity is also established for the scale. Table 4. Means, Standard Deviations, Cronbach’s Alphas, McDonald’s Omegas, Com-

posite Reliabilities, AVEs, MSVs and Correlations of the Scales

Variables Items Mean SD α CR-ω AVE MSV 1 2 3 4 5

Propensity

to Trust 4 3.892 .824 .910 .911 .718 .230 .848

Ability 6 3.795 .792 .922 .922 .662 .320 .480** .814

Benevo-

lence 5 3.868 .829 .914 .914 .680 .304 .468** .516** .825

Integrity 6 3.812 .923 .928 .928 .684 .320 .430** .566** .551** .827

Trust 4 3.883 .889 .890 .891 .671 .246 .439** .479** .481** .496** .819

α=Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficient, CR- ω =Composite Reliability, McDon-

ald’s Omega Coefficient, AVE=Average Variance Extracted, MSV=Maxi-

mum Shared Variance, SD=Standard Deviation, *Diagonal values are the

square root of AVEs, n = 323, **p<.01.

Reliability Analysis

For the second sample, item analysis revealed that corrected item-correla-

tions are between .784 and .803 (see Table 5). Furthermore, the results

showed that deleting items from the scale do not rise the Cronbach’s alpha

coefficient. In addition to item analysis, internal consistency of the scale

was also assessed using Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951) and McDon-

ald’s omega (McDonald, 1999) coefficients. As seen in Table 4 Cronbach’s

alpha was .910 whereas McDonald’s omega was .911. These results re-

vealed that reliability of the scale is established with these analyses.

Table 5. Reliability Analysis of the Propensity to Trust Scale

Propensity

to Trust Scale

Corrected

Item-Total

Correlation

Alpha If

Item Deleted Mean

Standard

Deviation

PT1 .784 .889 3.749 .966

PT2 .800 .882 3.833 .944

PT3 .800 .879 3.932 .917

PT4 .803 .856 4.056 .883



Discussion

In this study, the aim was to investigate the validity and reliability of the

propensity to trust scale (Frazier et. al., 2013) in two samples in Turkey. In

first study, we conducted explanatory factor analysis to reveal the factor

structure of the scale and the results showed one factor structure as in the

original scale. According to these results factor loadings were above .80

and statistically significant. These research findings are consistent with

earlier studies in several contexts (e.g.Frazier et. al., 2013).

We also examined the reliability of this scale using both item analysis

and reliability coefficients Cronbach’s alpha and McDonald’s omega in

the first sample. Both coefficients were above .70 and their values were

.874 and .875. respectively. Moreover, corrected item-total correlations re-

sulted between .688 and .758, which are above the cutoff value .30 (Nun-

nally & Bernstein, 1994, p. 305; Robinson, Shaver, & Wrightson., 1991, p.

31).

In the second study we conducted confirmatory factor analysis, estab-

lished the validity with convergent validity, discriminant validity, crite-

rion validity and reliability of the scale with item analysis and reliability

coefficients. Confirmatory factor analysis results showed excellent fit and

above .80 standardized regression coefficients that are statistically signifi-

cant, and confirmed one factor solution concurrent with explanatory fac-

tor analysis. The findings regarding convergent validity, discriminant va-

lidity, and criterion validity ensured the validity of the scale. We further

examined the reliability of the scale in the second sample. The item analy-

sis revealed values between .784 and .803 that are above .30 and reliability

coefficients resulted .910 and .911 that are above .70 in this sample as well.

These results showed satisfactory values that are compatible with the orig-

inal study (e.g.Frazier et. al., 2013).

This study is not without limitations. Even though we utilized two dif-

ferent samples, the participants were comprised of only students and pri-

vate sector employees from Adana. In future studies, the researchers can

conduct studies with samples from different cities in Turkey with employ-

ees from different occupations.



This study revealed that propensity to trust scale is one factor instru-

ment with very good reliability results. Moreover, the study showed that

the validity of this scale is also established. These findings suggest that

propensity to trust is a valid and reliable instrument for utilizing studies

in Turkey.

Kaynakça / References

Ashleigh, M. J., Higgs, M., and Dulewicz, V. (2012). A new propensity to

trust scale and its relationship with individual well-being: impli-

cations for HRM policies and practices, Human Resource Manage-

ment Journal, 22 (4), 360–376. doi:10.1111/1748-8583.12007

Bachmann, R. and Zaheer, A. (2006). Introduction. In (R. Bachmann and

A. Zaheer Eds.) Handbook of Trust Research (p. 1- 12). Northampton,

MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Bayram, N. (2010). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesine giriş [Introduction to struc-

tural equation modeling]. İstanbul: Ezgi Kitabevi.

Bernerth, J. B. and Walker, H. J. (2008). Propensity to trust and the impact

on social exchange. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies,

15 (3), 217–226. doi:10.1177/1548051808326594

Butler, J. K. (1991). Toward understanding and measuring conditions of

trust: Evolution of a conditions of trust inventory. Journal of Man-

agement, 17, 643-663.

Çokluk, Ö., Şekercioğlu, G., and Büyüköztürk, Ş. (2012). Sosyal bilimler için

çok değişkenli istatistik: SPSS ve LISREL uygulamaları, 2.baskı. An-

kara: Pegem Akademi.

Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A. and LePine, J. A. (2007). Trust, trustworthiness,

and trust propensity: A meta-analytic test of their unique relation-

ships with risk taking and job performance. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 92 (4), 909–927. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.909

Cook, J., and Wall, T. (1980). New work attitude measures of trust, organ-

izational commitment, and personal need nonfulfillment. Journal

of Occupational Psychology, 53, 39-52.

Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests.

Psychometrika, 16, 297–334.



Dirks, K. T., and Ferrin, D. L. (2002). Trust in leadership: Meta-analytic find-

ings and implications for research and practice. Journal of Applied Psy-

chology, 87(4), 611–628. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.87.4.611

Epskamp, S. & with contributions from Stuber, S. (2017). semPlot: Path

Diagrams and Visual Analysis of Various SEM Packages' Output.

R package version 1.1. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sem-

Plot.

Epskamp, S., Cramer, A. O. J., Waldorp, L. J., Schmittmann, V. D., and

Borsboom, D. (2012). Qgraph: Network visualizations of relation-

ships in psychometric data. Journal of Statistical Software, 48 (4), 1-

18. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i04/ accessed on 20.01.2019.

Frazier, M. L., Johnson, P. D., and Fainshmidt, S. (2013). Development and

validation of a propensity to trust scale. Journal of Trust Research, 3

(2), 76-97.

Gill, H., Boies, K., Finegan, J. E., and McNally, J. (2005). Antecedents of

trust: Establishing a boundary condition for the relation between

propensity to trust and intention to trust. Journal of Business and

Psychology, 19(3), 287–302. doi:10.1007/s10869-004-2229-8

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B J., and Anderson, R. E. (2014). Multivariate

data analysis. Pearson International Edition, 7th Edition. US: Pear-

son Education Limited.

Heyns, M. and Rothmann, S. (2015). Dimensionality of trust: An analysis

of the relations between propensity, trustworthiness and trust. SA

Journal of Industrial Psychology, 41 (1), 01-12.

Lewis, J. D., and Weigert, A. (1985). Trust as a social reality. Social Forces,

63, 967–985.

Mahony, D. M., Klimchak, M., and Morrell, D. L. (2012). The portability of

career-long work experience. Career Development International, 17

(7), 606–625. doi:10.1108/13620431211283779

Mayer, R. C., and Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance ap-

praisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 123–136.

Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., and Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative

Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review, 20

(3), 709–734. doi:10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335

https://cran.r-project.org/package=semPlot

https://cran.r-project.org/package=semPlot

http://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i04/



McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Mahwah, NJ: Erl-

baum.

Meydan, C. H., and Şeşen, H. (2011). Yapısal eşitlik modellemesi AMOS Uy-

gulamaları:Structural equation modeling AMOS applications]. Ankara:

Detay Yayıncılık.

Mishra, A. K. (1996). Organizational responses to crisis: The centrality of

trust. In (R. M. Kramer and T. Tyler Eds.), Trust in Organizations.

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Nambudiri, R. (2012). Propensity to trust and organizational commitment:

a study in the Indian pharmaceutical sector. The International Jour-

nal of Human Resource Management, 23 (5), 977–986.

Nunnally, J. C., ve Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory. 3rd Edition.

New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Poon, J. M. L., Mohd Salleh, A. H., and Senik, Z. C. (2007). Propensity to

trust as a moderator of the relationship between perceived organ-

izational support and job satisfaction. International Journal of Or-

ganization Theory & Behavior, 10 (3), 350–366. doi:10.1108/ijotb-10-

03-2007-b004

R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.

R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.

https://www.R-project.org/ accessed on 20.01.2019.

Revelle, W. (2017). Psych: Procedures for personality and psychological re-

search. Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois, USA,

https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=psych Version=1.7.8 ac-

cessed on 20.01.2019.

Ring, S. M., and Van De Ven, A. (1992). Structuring cooperative relation-

ships between organi-zations. Strategic Management Journal, 13,

483-498.

Robinson, J. P., Shaver, P. R. and Wrightson, L. S. (1991). Criteria for scale

selection and evaluation. In (J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver and L. S.

Wrightson Eds.), Measures of Personality and Social Psychological At-

titudes (p. 1-16). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling.

Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1-36. URL http://www.jst-

atsoft.org/v48/i02/.

https://www.r-project.org/





Rotter, J. B. (1967). A new scale for the measurement of interpersonal trust.

Journal of Personality, 35 (4), 651–665. doi:10.1111/j.1467-

6494.1967.tb01454.x

Rotter, J. B. (1971). Generalized expectancies for interpersonal trust. Amer-

ican Psychologist, 26 (5), 443–452. doi:10.1037/h0031464

Rotter, J. B. (1980). Interpersonal trust, trustworthiness, and gullibility.

American Psychologist, 35 (1), 1–7. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.35.1.1

Schoorman, F. D., Mayer, R. C., and Davis, J. H. (1996). Empowerment in

veterinary clinics: the role of trust in delegation. Paper presented

Journal of Trust Research, 6 (1), 76–90.

Sitkin, S. B, and Roth, N. L. (1993). Explaining the limited effectiveness of

legalistic "remedies" for trust/distrust. Organization Science, 4, 367-

392.

Van Dyne, L., Vandewalle, D., Kostova, T., Latham, M. E., and Cummings,

L. L. (2000). Collectivism, propensity to trust and self-esteem as

predictors of organizational citizenship in a non-work setting.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21 (1), 3–23.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-1379(200002)21:1<3::aid-job47>3.0.co;2-6

Whitener, E. M., Brodt, S. E., Korsgaard, M. A., and Werner, J. M. (1998).

Managers as initiators of trust: An exchange relationship frame-

work for understanding managerial trustworthy behavior. Acad-

emy of Management Review, 23(3), 513–530.

doi:10.5465/amr.1998.926624

Kaynakça Bilgisi / Citation Information

Ülbeği, İ. D. ve Yalçın, A. (2019). The validity and reliability of propensity

to trust scale. OPUS–Uluslararası Toplum Araştırmaları Dergisi,

12(18. UİK Özel Sayısı), 850-866. DOI: 10.26466/opus.592428

The Validity and Reliability of Propensity to Trust Scale...ISSN:2528-9527 E-ISSN : 2528-9535 Yıl Year : 9 Cilt Volume:12 Sayı Issue :18. UİK Özel Sayısı Ağustos August 2019

Documents